Prey Notebook and Desktop Benchmarks

Successful reboot. The "pre-Prey" from 2006 proved to be a genuine first-person shooter with its gravity components, which players long remembered. After discontinuing the originally planned Prey 2, the publisher Bethesda has announced a reorientation of the franchise in 2017. We checked the PC version's performance.

Technology

The developer of “Prey” is not unknown in the gaming community. The French Arkane Studios have been in business for decades (the author still remembers its first product “Arx Fatalis”) and it has delivered many triple-A games. In addition to “Dark Messiah of Might and Magic”, the “Dishonored” series would have to be mentioned here.

One of the biggest unique selling points of Arkane's games is their unique settings. “Prey” also has quite a bit to offer stylistically. Although the first-person shooter leans toward “BioShock” with its Art-déco indoor rooms, due to the science fiction characteristic and sometimes gloomy horror atmosphere, the game often seems to be a mixture of “Mirror's Edge Catalyst” and “Alien Isolation”.

Players are given many options to plan the line of action as they please, thanks to open levels and numerous gameplay features (crafting, hacking, upgrades, etc.). Whether sneaking around, fighting or using gimmicks strategically – “Prey” encourages experimenting and trying things out very much like “Deus Ex Mankind Divided”.

Anyone expecting a technical fiasco like “Dishonored 2” with a relatively poor performance at the beginning due to its Void engine can relax. “Prey” relies on the CryEngine by Crytek that is known for its high graphics quality (“Crysis 3”, “Ryse”, “Evolve”, etc.).

In the case of “Prey”, the technological state remains far behind the current possibilities. Many textures look blurry and cannot always serve with a high degree of details even in the maximum level (greetings from the recently tested “Dawn of War 3”). Unlike other games, we did not find this disturbing because the graphic style is so endearing that it is easy to ignore the weak textures. A decisive advantage of the textures' low resolution is the low requirement of resources. As we will analyze in a moment, “Prey” is surprisingly restrained for a 2017 game in terms of the power needs of the components.

Technical bugs were hardly an issue during the benchmarks and sampling sessions. Apart from occasional graphic errors (especially on transparent surfaces like glass) and two crashes, the game ran pleasantly smooth.

However, the video menu provides tuning enthusiasts with only a limited number of tweaks. There are just 7 options that hardly have an impact on the graphics in the extended tab. Generally, there is not a significant difference between minimum and maximum settings as long as anti-aliasing is activated. Unfortunately, “Prey” only supports the FXAA and SMAA post-processing variants that barely need performance but do not smooth out the image reliably. During the game we encountered many flickering objects, even in the highest level SMAA 2TX.

On the other hand, the practical presets have to be lauded. As usual, they allow adapting the overall quality in one step. Since all settings are implemented without relaunching the game (only the textures have to be reloaded briefly during a running game), the introductory videos that cannot be skipped and only run approximately 30 seconds is not a big problem. The loading times are also acceptable, and are even shorter with an SSD.

Currently, “Prey” reserves approximately 18 GB on the hard drive, which is more than acceptable for a modern game. The game is at most demanding in terms of video memory. Texture changes sometimes become visible when using graphics cards with 2 GB of VRAM or less. For example, 1920x1080 and high details affected the GeForce GTX 960M.

The incorporated frame-lock is also noteworthy: More than 144 FPS are not displayed without intervening in the game's .cfg file (sys_MaxFPS). Fortunately, Nvidia users will not notice that “Prey” belongs to AMD's Gaming Evolved program. The game runs pleasantly smooth, even on GeForce GPUs - provided the hardware is suitable.

Very High Preset

High Preset

Medium Preset

Low Preset

Very High Preset

High Preset

Medium Preset

Low Preset

Benchmark

According to our information, a benchmark is not integrated. Thus, we had to perform the speed tests manually. They were performed in the "Talos I Lobby" (so to say the hub of the gaming world). Starting at the entrance "Neuromod Division", we sprinted down the stairs to the lobby and ran directly to "Shuttle Bay". We stopped recording with the tool fraps in front of the shaft here.

The 20 to 30 second sequence has a medium demand, i.e. some scenes are more and others are less demanding. Since it is a shooter that uses the first-person perspective, an average of at least 40 FPS should be reached. Our hardware recommendations correspond to this. Users who want to perform their own benchmarks can use the sequence in the video below for reference. All enemies were eliminated before saving the game.

Thanks to the low hardware requirements, a gaming PC is not imperative for “Prey”. Although Intel's processor graphics chips (e.g. HD Graphics 4600) are quickly overloaded, dedicated entry-level GPUs, such as the GeForce 940MX, still manage 1280x720 to 1366x768 pixels in the low and/or medium presets.

Very High Preset

High Preset

Medium Preset

Low Preset

Very High Preset

High Preset

Medium Preset

Low Preset

It should be a mid-range chip on the level of a GeForce GTX 960M or GeForce GTX 1050 for 1920x1080 pixels and the (very) high preset. Most systems find their limits in the 4K range. First a GeForce GTX 980 displayed a combination of 3840x2160 pixels and the high preset smoothly in the test. As so often, the CPU is secondary and the video accelerator is almost always the limiting factor.

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Overview

Announced at least months ago (>0) Show only items with known benchmark results Still available (not archived) Show benchmark bars Show single scores on hover Show Percent Show performance classes Perf. Rating

(-) * Smaller values are better. / n123 Number of benchmarks for this median value / * Approximate position

Legend

5

Stutters – This game is very likely to stutter and have poor frame rates. Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, average frame rates are expected to fall below 25fps

May Stutter – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, stutters and poor frame rates are expected.

30

Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 25fps

40

Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 35fps

May Run Fluently – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, fluent frame rates are expected.

123

Uncertain – This graphics card experienced unexpected performance issues during testing for this game. A slower card may be able to achieve better and more consistent frame rates than this particular GPU running the same benchmark scene.

Uncertain – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game and no reliable interpolation can be made based on the performances of surrounding cards of the same class or family.

The value in the fields displays the average frame rate of all values in the database. Move your cursor over the value to see individual results.